Cruise Missile Carrier Airliner conversions

That difficult?

Actually, there are two main transport-to-bomber snags. The wing is almost exactly where you don't want it - low-mounted on the CG. And the floor is hard to move upwards, and there is limited space below it.

This photo, by the way, shows the (at the time, secret) reason for the P-8A bay being aft of the wing, and why the -800 version was chosen. (Until 2003 the Boeing MMA was a -700 with a forward bay.) They wanted the space for a radar.
 

Attachments

  • p-8ags5.jpg
    p-8ags5.jpg
    65.7 KB · Views: 590
The soviets would have looked much less bad shooting down the Korean airlines B747 if similar looking airplanes were known to present a rather severe nuclear threat to the Soviet Union.
 
LowObservable said:
That difficult?

Actually, there are two main transport-to-bomber snags. The wing is almost exactly where you don't want it - low-mounted on the CG. And the floor is hard to move upwards, and there is limited space below it.

This photo, by the way, shows the (at the time, secret) reason for the P-8A bay being aft of the wing, and why the -800 version was chosen. (Until 2003 the Boeing MMA was a -700 with a forward bay.) They wanted the space for a radar.
Click to expand...

Okay, so there is no real snag?
I was thinking along the lines of the Lockheed Electra that was morphed into the P-3.
Not necessarily a big weapons bay ala the B-52 or Victor, but along the lines of smaller countries perhaps modifying say a boeing 707 to carry a limited amount of cruise missiles.
The scenario was raised in a book detailing South Africa's nuclear weapons and delivery programme. They operated 5 Boeing 707's in the tanker/ELINT/AWACS role, but the book I've read states that there was a serious look at getting additional 707's on the open market to be possibly used as cruise missile carriers.
The authors stated that a source mentioned that there was a project to fit them with internal bays, although the authors themselves believed external carriage was more likely.

Looking at pictures of the SAAF Boeings,I guess that makes sense to me too, seeing as how much space their electronics package takes up in the front ventral fuselage.
 
The Electra-based P-3s (and 737-based P-8s) were built from scratch with the bay and have reinforced structures around the bay to support it. Doing that as a retrofit to a 707 would probably be possible, but it would be a lot of work. External carriage makes vastly more sense.
 
Since a long time has passed since the last message was posted, I would like to know whether more information has become available about these aircraft or whether there have been any modern equivalents to these projects.
 
On a different note, Handley Page proposed a Skybolt carrying variant of their HP.117 laminar flow flying wing airliner and Vickers also designed a variant of their VC.10 capable of carrying the Sybolt missile system, both of which were mentioned in Chris Gibson's "Vulcan's Hammer".
 
Wyvern said:
On a different note, Handley Page proposed a Skybolt carrying variant of their HP.117 laminar flow flying wing airliner and Vickers also designed a variant of their VC.10 capable of carrying the Sybolt missile system, both of which were mentioned in Chris Gibson's "Vulcan's Hammer".
Click to expand...
Just an observation, but VC10 could carry up to 8 skybolts on 4 dual pylons. B-52 could carry 4 skybolts on two pylons. Those same 2 pylons could carry 6 ALCMs each, so VC10 could potentially carry 24 ALCMs on wing pylons. That avoids the internal bay problem entirely, at the cost of drag. But it's less feasible on wings carrying engine pylons, which is all new large airliners.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=1304


I just noticed that this artwork depicts 3 types of missiles in the air, which one would expect to indicate they types that the proposed aircraft would be capable of carrying/launching. The Boeing and GD cruise missiles in the foreground make sense, but the third missile looks like a Phoenix (given the mid-70s date, I think the Eagle can be ruled out). Perhaps Lockheed envisioned this aircraft defending itself.
Click to expand...
 
taildragger said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=1304


I just noticed that this artwork depicts 3 types of missiles in the air, which one would expect to indicate they types that the proposed aircraft would be capable of carrying/launching. The Boeing and GD cruise missiles in the foreground make sense, but the third missile looks like a Phoenix (given the mid-70s date, I think the Eagle can be ruled out). Perhaps Lockheed envisioned this aircraft defending itself.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Looks a lot like the missile in this thread.


I suspect that yes, this was intended to allow the launch aircraft to defend itself from long range interceptors on the way in to its launch point. If they were trying to reach targets deep inside the Soviet Union, the cruise missile launch points would have to be pretty close to the border.
 
While looking for AGM-86A information in Goetz's "A technical history of america's nuclear weapons: volume II - developments from 1960 through 2020 - second edition" I ran across a sentence that said the C-14 and C-15 were also considered for the CMC mission.

I like the aircraft, but they don't seem to have the capacity or range to be really effective in the role. Although they would be terrific at dispersal to remote sites during a crisis.

Has anyone else seen or read anything about the use of the AMST competitors in the CMC role?
 
flateric said:
1). Boeing 747 as ALBM carrier
2). 4 and 6-engined 'endurance airplane' ALBM carrier
3). Amphibian ALBM carrier
All stuff from 1974
Click to expand...

On this note, does anyone has any information on how the wide-body airliner conversions for the airmobile MX concept would look like? Thanks in advance (and apologies in advance for the horrendously late quotation...)
 
td_07 said:
flateric said:
1). Boeing 747 as ALBM carrier
2). 4 and 6-engined 'endurance airplane' ALBM carrier
3). Amphibian ALBM carrier
All stuff from 1974
Click to expand...

On this note, does anyone has any information on how the wide-body airliner conversions for the airmobile MX concept would look like? Thanks in advance (and apologies in advance for the horrendously late quotation...)
Click to expand...

Late replies are totally normal here -- that's why we do topic-based threads.

Air-launched ICBMs do have their own threads, a couple of which deal with widebody airliners like the 747:


 
TomS said:
td_07 said:
flateric said:
1). Boeing 747 as ALBM carrier
2). 4 and 6-engined 'endurance airplane' ALBM carrier
3). Amphibian ALBM carrier
All stuff from 1974
Click to expand...

On this note, does anyone has any information on how the wide-body airliner conversions for the airmobile MX concept would look like? Thanks in advance (and apologies in advance for the horrendously late quotation...)
Click to expand...

Late replies are totally normal here -- that's why we do topic-based threads.

Air-launched ICBMs do have their own threads, a couple of which deal with widebody airliners like the 747:


Click to expand...

Many thanks TomS - will have a look at these.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom